Tide turning on Circumcision, Push to circumcise all male infants

The population at issue is the population living in dry land communities without running water.

There are a fair number of infections and other hassles - from viral to bacterial to fungal to mechanical - that find excellent habitat under a human foreskin which is kept cloistered and damp in fabric and not regularly, frequently, bathed.

That's where the AIDS danger comes from - not the virus alone, but the prevalence of fungal lesions and other access routes to the bloodstream. That's the commonly presented reason why Western men don't catch AIDS from women nearly as readily as African men do - for various reasons, they don't have as many lesions on their dicks. That's one possibility, anyway, that seems to fit the circumstances.

The "natural" human male, the one that comes with a foreskin via evolution, probably lives more or less naked on a riverbank or ocean beach; he is not wrapping his genitals in clothing, saturating his environment with the feces of himself and his domestic animals, or living in one small and increasingly unsanitary little hut for years on end, with no convenient bathing facilities.

We have showers now, with soap. That recent innovation changes the terms of the discussion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

thats what ive herd but cant say 100% dont really go around deflowering virgins (nor would i want to)

make a thread about and see if women can rember there first time

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess it would hurt if you were nervous and tense.

I will, lol

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you can design men and women....what would you change then ?.

 

No iceaura, there is *not* a fair number of infections whose frequencies increase as a result of being circumcised or not. The only serious one that matters is AIDS, and that doesn't afflict everyday American men on a significant enough basis anyway. Statistically speaking, the "danger" of AIDS is hardly a danger that most men need worry about at all, and if your hyperbole had any sound basis to it, then circumcision would be advised by medical associations. Right now it is not. I REPEAT: no medical trade association in the USA recommends circumcision anymore.

What we are seeing from you is some very common behavior that snipped men exhibit on a very routine basis, where they actively reach out to grasp any remote reason they possibly can that would validate a cruel procedure that happened to them, which they know to be irreversable. Try to break free from your own chains, if you can. This is not about you.

 

Your stats are incorrect. It's more like 2/3, and it's 4/5 in the MidWeat. Furthermore, might I again refer you to the OP? Both the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics are revising their guidelines to encourage circumcision.

Must you use this same half baked psychology to analyze everything? First, you try to discuss philosophy with an opinion based entirely on Ayn Rand's physical appearance. Now, you turn a reasonable discussion of a medical procedure into your own little psychological analysis of anyone who disagrees with you.

This is a distraction from the actual argument and is evidence that you sense you are losing; so you try to make it personal with your little back yard psychology.

 

The APA already mentions the slight decrease in risk of contracting HIV in their statement. They don't tell parents what to do, they don't even make a suggestion. They just give information, both scientific and the common not so scientific reasons many parents choose circumcision. According to the APA about 55% of American infants are being circumcised today, but the general male adult population is at about 80%.

 

Nay, must you continue to not post the truth..? That article states that (1) the CDC has yet to release any such draft and that (2) there is a *likelihood* in the opinion of one consultant that the AAP may revise their guidelines. Notice how the author of this article has chosen his words. There is no statement anywhere in the article that the AAP is actually doing that. For that reason, this is probably a media hype creation that will never come to fruition, just like so many exagerrated pieces of health journalism. By the end of the year we will know.


I REPEAT: THE AAP and CDC have made no statement that they are ever going to encourage circumcision, and there is no confirmation that the guidelines will actually be revised in that way. That is an incontrovertible fact at this time.

And 2/3 today is not the rate that babies are being circumcised. 2/3 is the rate for aged men like yourself. According to the official US census, it was like 55% by 8 years ago, and it was steadily and surely in decline. It may be less than half by now.

 

UPDATE:

It is now 2010, which is beyond the point in time that manthony was stating the CDC would officially announce a recommendation in favor of male circumcision (it was supposed to come at the end of last year) and no such recommendation has taken place.

Clearly, madanthony is a victim of concocted hype and shitty jewish journalism, having been easily misled by speculative and unsubstantiated rumors. As of today, January 4, 2009, the CDC states that it has not made any recommendation at this point in time. However, very interestingly, the current CDC fact sheet on circumcision makes light of the fact that (quote) "in 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) changed from a neutral stance on circumcision to a position that the data then available were insufficient to recommend routine neonatal male circumcision. This position was reaffirmed by the Academy in 2005."

Lesson to all: avoid trying to submit speculation of unwritten future scientific reports as though they mean anything in a conversation.

 

You are a maniac on this issue. What did you do, mark your calender? Regardless, the new report hasn't come out yet so your update is completely worthless. There's nothing to report at this point. From the CDC site:

Status of CDC Male Circumcision Recommendations

Some recent reports have speculated about the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) upcoming public health recommendations on male circumcision for HIV prevention in the United States.

It is important to note that the recommendations are still in development and CDC has made no determination at this time about the final content. CDC is employing a deliberative, evidence-based process for developing the circumcision recommendations, which allows for both external and internal CDC experts to provide input. CDC will also publish draft recommendations for public comment before the content will be finalized.

With respect to infant circumcision, it is important to recognize that many options are still being considered in this process, including simply recommending that health-care providers educate parents about the potential benefits and risks to ensure that parents have the information they need to make an informed decision.

In developing its recommendations, CDC is also considering whether circumcision should be recommended for heterosexual adults at high risk for HIV infection in the United States, as well as whether there is sufficient scientific evidence to make any recommendations for men who have sex with men.

Whatever the content may include, CDC’s final circumcision recommendations will be completely voluntary. While CDC has not yet determined if male circumcision should be recommended for any population, ultimately the decision will rest with individuals and parents. CDC’s public health imperative is to provide the best possible information on the risks and benefits to help inform those decisions.

For further information, please link to CDC Fact Sheet on male circumcision.


Last Modified: August 27, 2009
Last Reviewed: August 27, 2009
Content Source:
Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention
National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention​

As you can see from the last modified date, no action has been taken since August. Expecting a government agency to finish something on time is a bit silly. The fact that the CDC is reviewing its policy on circumcision is clearly not a lie based on "shitty Jewish Journalism" (nice racism there). They simply haven't finished. Please wait until some action has been taken before your next update.

 

lets see if i can reverse that statement and see how it looks?

"a girl with a clit is ugly and how dare she expect me to have sex with her like a normal girl?" Fair enough orleander?

Oh right, its not feminally correct to say that but expecting young BOYS to be muterlated for YOUR sexual preference is ok because they are just boys

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't know about Orly, but I think that's quite fair, Asguard. And you shoud use that on your potential sex partners. No one is stopping you, ya' know?

Baron Max

 

Asguard,
What are you ranting about? Hits too close to home??? Wha???
I don't care if they demanded it. I would laugh in his face and walk away from the relationship. Its that easy
How does the Taliban fit into it?? (is the Taliban the new Nazi? Is there a Godwin's law for it??)

 

Or they simply aren't rewriting their policy, period. That statement by the CDC hasn't been modified since August, madanthony. In fact, it was written only four days after the original article you posted in this thread, no doubt in an attempt to dismiss the speculation of wishful thinkers like yourself.

 

Is it really a fair comparison?

Asguard

Do you really think clitoridectomy is a fair comparison? There is, after all, a cosmetic procedure in which the hood of the clitoris is cut back; that's a bit more akin to circumcision.

The male equivalent of clitoridectomy would be some sort of mutilation of the glans itself. At least, that's how I see it.

 

But it wouldn't matter to you if the CDC did change their stance, would it? I mean, if the CDC changed and recommended circumcisions, would you accept it then without complaint? If not, then why ever argue about the CDC policy?

Will, tell me ......why are you so obssessed with this issue? Yes, I can understand a stance against circumcision, but why so ...obsessed about it? People cut the fingernails of little babies, are you against that, too? Some people, believe it or not, have their babies tatooed. I don't think either one of them hurt/harm the baby, so what's the big deal? Why are so adamant about telling others what they can and can't do?

Opinion ...yes. Obsessive behavior about it? ........hmmm.

Baron Max

 

Mod Hat - You will ....

Mod Hat — You will ....

I just cleaned up a hell of a mess for two days' worth of posting. Eight posts gone; three edited. No specific warnings will be issued on this occasion. However:

You will ...

• ... maintain some semblance of dignity, even in disagreement.

• ... find civilized, decent, and useful ways to express your disdain.

• ... learn to understand when the terms of a dispute suggest the best thing to do is walk away.

• ... learn to type each other's names.​

Your only other choice is to stay the hell out of S&S.

Easy enough?

Good.

 

Having your babies tattooed is highly illegal almost everywhere and can constitute a felony. Recently, some hick family was arrested for tattooing five of their children with a black cross on their hands. It helps to know what you are talking about.

Because it is directly affecting the physical well-being and body image of another, who is far too immature to weigh the consequences that the procedure will have on the rest of their life.

 

there are an equivilant number of nerve endings in the forskin tiassa, maybe its more like removing the G-spot (im not 100% sure which nerves go where) rember they ARE exactly the same nevers in both males and females, its where they are located which is differen).

Oh and tiassa, im sorry if you took "child abuser" as an insult but many child advocasy groups, human rights organisations and even feminist groups which were started for the purpose of eliminating FGM concider an unnessary "cosmetic" Circumcision of EITHER gender to be child abuse. IF orleander and the others with kids who they have done that to find that uncomfertable thats just to bad

 

Oh, really? Where? Mind giving me a list of all those states, etc?

***

Baron Max: "Why are so adamant about telling others what they can and can't do?"

Okay, I'll buy that.

Now, let's look at this from a different perspective, okay? You're battling this "horrible mutilation" of a few little boys in the world, which amounts to mostly nothing of consequence except a little skin, not much more than clipping fingernails. And you worry and battle and concern yourself about it, ...while millions of little kids starve to death every day all over the world. You battle the circumcision issue heartily, yet I've never, ever seen a post of yours even expressing concern about the starving kids. See? What's the deal, WillNever?

See? Why is this issue of circumcision so important to you? Why do you feel obsessed by it ....yet ignore all the hungry and starving kids of the world?

Baron Max